Re: broken schools

D <nospam@example.net> writes:

Too much screen reading if you ask me. But when I'm not working, I
read a lot of
regular books, or on my eInk device, which is much kinder to the
eyes. Reading
is one of my greatest hobbies. My wife gets annoyed at the enormous number of
books I accumulate. She wants me to throw them away, but it would be like
throwing away my children. I cannot do it! =/

>
I don't know the two of you, but it does sound like a good idea to throw
it all away.  But I'm suspicious to say it because I often do it.  When

>
Ouch! My children! ;)

Lol.  I know. :)

I try to go to the beach every day.  Today, for instance, I biked to the
beach, swam and then drank coconut water and do my reading.  If I'm not

>
Oh, wonderful! Where do you live?

>
Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

>
Ahh... the country of eternal sunshine and happiness! At least that is what it
looks like from here on the surface.

That's how it looks from my perspective here as well, although I'm aware
of so much suffering taking place here every day.

But sadly I have also heard that polarization and leftists vs rightist
has infiltrated brazil as well. =( I hope it won't become as bad as
the US, that would be really bad for the country.

You can definitely say that.  This theme is very interesting for people
interested in Brazil or perhaps the US.  The US has a huge influence in
Brazil.  A very /small/ illustration is the political system.  Like the
US, Brazil has a bicameral federal congress---meaning, you know, you
have a house of representatives and a senate.  We can argue that such a
system makes sense for the United States, considering how its republic
came about.  In the origins of the federation, you have a movement to
centralize power from the individual states---let's say a movement from
the outer to the inner.  In Brazil, it's the opposite: Brazil's republic
came about by a distribution of power from the monarchic center to its
smaller regions.  A bicameral system is a certain conservative system
that makes sense in a federation formed out of mistrusting states,
unlike Brazil's case.  So the bicameral system for Brazil serves more to
slow it down than anything else.  I could make the case that this was
done by Brazil by mere influence on aesthetics---we think they're
smarter than us, so let's what they're doing.  (Surely this is too
simplistic, but I want just a single paragraph here.)

But that's only an illustration.  Due to commercial reasons, the
Brazilian food industry has been following in the foot steps of the
American, with the disastrous consequences of a population overweight
now (with all of the chronic diseases that are killing the american
population, like nearly everywhere else in the world).

American influence in Brazil started out strongly in the 40s and 50s,
reaching its apex in the 60s.  It's an interesting history because it
was clearly planned and a good illustration of the current status quo:
it's quite useful to study this history if one wishes to understand
Brazil today.

I also imagine that it would be difficult to work from the beach. Too many
beautiful women, it must be very distracting!

You're quite right.  It is indeed *very* distracting.  In fact,
observing such things has given the conclusion that visual stimili (at
least in myself) is a really strong physiological thing: it seems quite
stronger than any will power.  I started out reading at the beach so I
would have something to do there, staying longer in the sun.  So my slow
reading doesn't defeat that purpose.  I also often go during week days,
when the beach is not crowded with people.  It worked out so well that
it seems to work like a second phase of my work schedule.  I write in
the morning and read in the afternoon, intermixed with walking, swimming
and biking.  I cannot do it *every* day because I need to ``the office''
some days.

Wonderful! Sounds like an excellent idea! I do save online articles
and stuff as pdf:s and do the same thing sometimes, going to a café
or when flying. I find the effect very similar to yours.

>
I used to go to cafés too... But they only have bad stuff to eat such as
coffee and coffee-like drinks and anything with gluten. :) Coconut

>
Bad coffee?? Doesn't brazil have the best coffee in the world?? Be thankful that
you don't have to drink the crap I have here in europe. ;)

I think we produce wonderful coffee, but I also think that wonderful
coffee is mostly exported.  Makes perfect sense: you sell your best
products to your best customers (those that pay more).  That's a sorry
thing when living in a country with too many poor people: the industry
brings the cheapest things for you.

But I consider coffee---no matter how good quality if might be---a drug
to be totally kept on a leash.  I don't think we should make regular use
of any stimulants---of any drug at all.

I am probably a naturalist.  If coffee ``accelerates your physiology'',
then we can say that such ``speed'' is not the natural way of your body.
If you do it every day, you're totally not respecting the natural way of
the system.  Not a religious thing at all---recall that perspective I
had on tattoos.  So this is another illustration of why I find myself
more religious than the vast number of very religious people I've ever
met.

I'm currently reading Mirrorshades by Bruce Sterling (and other
authors). Some good, classic cyberpunk.

>
Sounds interesting.  The topic is fascinating.  But it might be a little
overrated as well.  Currently, I don't think our technology is really
advanced to warrant all the exploration of cyberpunk writing.  What I
think we have a lot of hype, which makes sense, given that the industry
has taken over the monarchies over the years.  You see, rewind history
until the collapse of the roman empire; then feuds sprang; then
monarchies were established, with help from the churches; eventually the
industrial revolution begins and then the bourgeoisie rises.  Now it's
their prime time---no wonder the hype is all in their favor.

>
It is an interesting thought that kingdoms faded, were replaced by nations.
Perhaps now, nations are fading (slowly) and getting replaced with corporations?
Imagine a future were your primary allegiance is to your corporation, and the
nation of old, just exists in the background as a faint humming sound, that no
one really cares about.
>
What do you think?

I think along these lines.  Today I see most of government as just
employees of corporations.  I think it's very easy to see.  Political
parties cannot do anything without money.  But they're not companies:
they produce no product in the typical sense of the word.  So where do
they money come from?  It comes from corporations.  Who makes decisions
in a company? The owner or the employees?  (Who makes decisions in
society?  The goverment or the real owners?)

So when people say that governments don't seem to work in favor of the
population, I remark precisely the above---if you owned a company, would
you let your employees have the final say in the decisions?  That'd be
absurd; it's your company; you call the shots.  Similarly, corporations
(who invest in most of the government officials' careers), should have
the final say in nearly everything.

What do corporations want?  Almost nothing.  Because they're in power.
The desire of those in power is to keep things as they are.

We can make a parallel here with the relationship between monarchies and
the church.  The church partnered with kings because they were useful to
each other: kings won their power by the use of force, which attracts
the interest of any other entity of some meaningful power (such as the
church).  Their partnership is then natural: the influence of the church
on the people was useful to install the idea that the power of kings had
divine origins.

The very idea of a constitutional monarchy comes from the industry: when
the industry realizes that it was their time to be at the top, they
naturally make up a system that reduces the power of the monarchies,
with the brilliant argument that individual guarantees are needed.  So
republics arise and we can make the parallel that governments take the
function that the church had in their partnership with kings.  People
now are busy trying to organize themselves by interacting with the
bureaucracy of governments---this is the civilized, legal, democratic
way of living.

There is, therefore, a natural conflict between public policy and the
interests of corporations.  The reason governments have, in principle,
nearly all the power and still are so ineffective against corporation is
a fact that's very illuminating.  No fact is a contradiction; all
paradoxes are only apparent.